Talbott open the deed and point out the error?  Where a thing is not, it cannot be pointed out.  The error was not in the deed, and of course could not be pointed out there.  This does not merely prove that the error could not be pointed out, as Lucian swore it was; but it proves, too, that the deed was not opened in his presence with a special view to the error, for if it had been, he could not have failed to see that there was no error in it.  It is easy enough to see why Lucian swore this.  His object was to prove that the assignment was not in the deed when Talbott got it:  but it was discovered he could not swear this safely, without first swearing the deed was opened—­and if he swore it was opened, he must show a motive for opening it, and the conclusion with him and his father was that the pointing out the error would appear the most plausible.

For the purpose of showing that the assignment was not in the bundle when Talbott got it, is the story introduced into Lucian’s affidavit that the deeds were counted.  It is a remarkable fact, and one that should stand as a warning to all liars and fabricators, that in this short affidavit of Lucian’s he only attempted to depart from the truth, so far as I have the means of knowing, in two points, to wit, in the opening the deed and pointing out the error and the counting of the deeds,—­and in both of these he caught himself.  About the counting, he caught himself thus—­after saying the bundle contained five deeds and a lease, he proceeds, “and I saw no other papers than the said deed and lease.”  First he has six papers, and then he saw none but two; for “my son Lucian’s” benefit, let a pin be stuck here.

Adams again adduces the argument, that he could not have forged the assignment, for the reason that he could have had no motive for it.  With those that know the facts there is no absence of motive.  Admitting the paper which he has filed in the suit to be genuine, it is clear that it cannot answer the purpose for which he designs it.  Hence his motive for making one that he supposed would answer is obvious.  His making the date too old is also easily enough accounted for.  The records were not in his hands, and then, there being some considerable talk upon this particular subject, he knew he could not examine the records to ascertain the precise dates without subjecting himself to suspicion; and hence he concluded to try it by guess, and, as it turned out, missed it a little.  About Miller’s deposition I have a word to say.  In the first place, Miller’s answer to the first question shows upon its face that he had been tampered with, and the answer dictated to him.  He was asked if he knew Joel Wright and James Adams; and above three-fourths of his answer consists of what he knew about Joseph Anderson, a man about whom nothing had been asked, nor a word said in the question—­a fact that can only be accounted for upon the supposition that Adams had secretly told him what he wished him to swear to.